Not that it's any secret but I have a higher tolerance level for the 'Nietzschean nihilists' to the Schopenhauerian ones. I've more more sympathy for a man who says 'There is No God so therefore the meaning of the world is an arbitrary posit of my equally arbitrary will' to the one who says 'There is no God so do what I say, feel as I say; get up and fight the good fight!' .

Quote
Originally Posted by Robert Adam Gilmour

Whenever I see people like this who are punky Stalinists or cyber bully MRA white nationalists I wonder how they'd feel if they got everything they wanted. Would they be happy being one of millions of conforming squares in the new regime or would they just hate it?
Who are the ones who want an easy life and who needs to be an angry underdog?

I can't speak so much for the Stalinist types; I suspect in the Post New Left scenario a great deal of their strength and image comes from a primarily negative oppositional stance. Regarding the 'MRA white nationalists*', I'm only familiar with one of them, and I suspect he would be happy with that state-of-affairs, though by his own logic he would also be happy with a multi-racial society where everyone acted in a certain way (he would merely dismiss the possibility of such a society). Racism is ultimately a difficult one to square with anti-Consequentialism and free will since it makes moral assessments of people based on something other than their behavior as moral agents.

*MRA is a difficult term. If you meant the American pickup-artist 'Game' thing then given the emphasis on personal victory over others it is hard to see how it could serve as the grounds of a stable society. Even the much vaunted Libertarian style society where everyone is free to pursue absolute unbridled competition is unlikely. As the whole thing is meant to be amoral (in which case what bearing does it have on political proposals?) it is hard to see what objection they could give against re-engineering certain standards of sexual desirability through media imaging and social pressure.

I try to listen to some of Boyd Rice's songs, and the common messages seem to be about this persecution complex they have against value systems. Society's values are viewed as delusional--chains which keep them back--and a great upheaval needs to happen for things to be "right" again.
Nihilism explains their symptoms, and fascism as one of the solutions.

I'm not sure what you mean by poseur. Boyd Rice appears genuine in his beliefs.

If you know about Boyd Rice, what do you think of Death in June?

"So in the end it remains advisable to accept whatever comes, to behave like an inert mass even if one feels oneself being swept away, not to be lured into a single unneccesary step, to regard others with the gaze of an animal, to feel no remorse, in short to crush with one's own hand any ghost of life that subsists, that is, to intensify the final quiet of the grave still further and let nothing beyond that endure." ---Franz Kafka, Resolutions

His fixation with Might is Right politics is a notable dent on his music. Everything is about strength, and crushing the weak, and jada jada jada... there is no variation, no evolution, no nothing. Just the same boring crap.

Transgressive art is a kind of Mannerism. Things that actually require sustained strength (both mental and physical), like being a farmer or managing multiple properties, or running a drug cartel in a developing country, are almost never activities engaged in by transgressive artists, or artists extolling "strength."

Let's compare Nietzsche and Brigham Young. Nietzsche is a favorite of edge lords, and Brigham Young is not. Yet Nietzsche was a sickly academic working in German philology who died in pitiable mental and physical condition without descendants, while Brigham Young was a military, political and spiritual leader who more or less held the entire U.S. national government at bay and died with legions of descendants. I'm pretty certain that in every definition of "strength" we could give, Brigham Young would demolish Nietzsche.

Clearly, Young was much more of a superman than Nietzsche, although entirely in service of ideas most of us would consider silly (sorry if there are any Mormons reading this).

Thing is, this is pretty par for the course in human history. Note that Young didn't make up his own ideas, they were cribbed from Prophet Smith, who was a bit of a charlatan to be honest (trying to find buried treasure, dicking about with magic stones, writing King James fan fiction, etc). You often see this - another example would be the Nation of Islam, which was founded by another dodgy vanishing trickster type, Wallace D. Fard, and then carried into great seriousness by passionate community organisers like Elijah Muhammad.

Decadent or Neo-Decadent art requires a high degree of civilization to come about. You can't spend all your time creating artistic beauty if you're in a war zone or trying to support a large family. You can only have a Flaubert or Huysmans once youíve got a society that allows a high degree of leisure, and is relatively permissive. Itís the same reason the Marquis de Sade was a MARQUIS and not a Breton peasant or whatever.

I feel allegedly unhappy people are accused of pretence more than allegedly happy people. There are no doubt many Rust Cohle wannabes running around, but I don't see why anybody posting a Carl Sagan image they barely understand on social media doesn't court the same accusations of pretentiousness.

My personal inner suicidal and depressed nature is so detached from the outer universe that I don't understand many unhappy nihilists. Nietzsche's teachings in particular seem to be championing positive values of self-determination and intellectual freedom when placed in their correct context of a society under religious tyranny.

'I believe in what the Germans term Ehrfurcht: reverence for things one cannot understand.'
― Robert Aickman, An Essay

Nietzsche's teachings in particular seem to be championing positive values of self-determination and intellectual freedom when placed in their correct context of a society under religious tyranny.

The society Nietzsche inhabited was relatively permissive. If it hadn't been, he wouldn't have been able to maintain a university position, much less publish his ideas. Actual religious tyranny is where they just kill you. : )

Relatively permissive compared to other societies, but still tyrannical in its inculcation of supposedly objective, rigid, unquestionable values among the populace.

It certainly wasn't ideal, but it could definitely have been worse. I'm of the unfashionable opinion that the West has been more or less progressing, despite numerous pendulum swings and setbacks. And the change to "Having a messed up mind from childhood indoctrination" from "Getting instantly killed for making fun of God" is actually a positive one. Humans are mostly stupid, boring and conservative, so it takes a long time for anything to change, and the stupidity is always at the door waiting to rush right back in (see: current America).

Relatively permissive compared to other societies, but still tyrannical in its inculcation of supposedly objective, rigid, unquestionable values among the populace.

It certainly wasn't ideal, but it could definitely have been worse.

It could have been worse, but one of the core values of his work was in shedding traditionalism for traditionalism's sake preconceptions of morality and the universe. This would not have been pertinent outside of a society which forced traditionalism for traditionalism's sake, irrational preconceptions of morality and the universe on people.

Quote

I'm of the unfashionable opinion that the West has been more or less progressing, despite numerous pendulum swings and setbacks.

This is my opinion also, generally. Contemporary values and art alienate me, but at least I'm safe enough to hide away in my corner of Romanticism and embarrassing earnestness.

Quote

(see: current America).

Indeed. Hideous.

'I believe in what the Germans term Ehrfurcht: reverence for things one cannot understand.'
― Robert Aickman, An Essay